The first chapter of this dissertation introduced the problem of underperforming, entering-student matriculation at a technical college. The second chapter explored relevant scholarly literature on college choice, enrollment management, and the special-mission of technical colleges. The third chapter explained the combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods employed to examine the following research questions.
Primary Question:
What actions will motivate a greater proportion of admitted students to enroll at a technical college?
Secondary Questions:
What factors influence the matriculation decision of students admitted to a technical college?
Under what circumstances will non-enrolling students reconsider their decision? Which positive influences can the technical college accentuate to persuade more
students to enroll?
This fourth chapter reveals the outcomes of the data collection and analysis. The chapter is divided into two major sections. First, the fundamental research findings are presented. Second, the results are developed and interpretations are proposed.
Findings
The findings that follow offer a deep and meaningful description of the research results. Organizationally, this section presents the findings separately for each of the three research methods; one regarding the quantitative analysis of survey results, one concerning the qualitative
analysis of interviews, and one about the qualitative analysis of a focus group discussion. Each method begins with descriptive information, providing demographics and an overview of the composition of the study participants. Then the research findings are presented. Finally, reliability and validity concerns are addressed.
Quantitative research method. The findings for the study’s quantitative research method come from a statistical analysis of pre-existing survey data. During the spring and summer of 2013, the technical college surveyed all matriculating students admitted to the
institution; using the College Board’s Admitted Student Questionnaire® (see Appendix A). The questionnaire opens by asking the respondents to reflect on a series of college choice factors, rating each item on two likert-type scales. The first scale assigns level of importance and the second scale compels an institutional rating comparison. These components of the questionnaire serve as the foundation for this study and are examined herein by way of statistical analysis. This analysis begins with descriptive statistics presenting an overview of the demographical composition of the survey respondents.
Demographics. A total of 308 admitted students voluntarily submitted an actionable
survey response set. Within the questionnaire, students were asked to indicate their intent to enroll at the technical college. At the time, it was the intention of 256 of the 308 respondents to attend the technical college. The remaining 52 admitted students did not intend to attend the technical college. Distinguishing these two groups and understanding meaningful differences between them is a crucial aspect of this study. Table 2 offers the first such comparison,
presenting various categories of common demographical elements for the two cohorts; including statistical significance calculations.
Table 2
Survey Respondent Demographic Characteristics as a Percentage of the Sample, Compared to Host Site Norms
Characteristics Enrolling (n=256) Non-Enrolling (n=52) Host Site Norm (n=5,678) Gender Male 61.1 57.1 63.0 Female 38.9 42.9 37.0 Race/Ethnic Background Am Indian/Native 2.4 0.0 0.3 Asian/Pac Islndr 1.8 0.0 0.7
Mexican American 0.6 0.0 n/a
Puerto Rican 1.2 10.5 n/a
Other Hispanic 1.2 0.0 3.0
Black/African Amer 4.8 10.5 3.7
White 85.1 78.9 84.5
Other 3.0 0.0 7.9
Average Grades in High School
A (90-100) 35.4 40.0 23.2
B (80-89) 52.6 45.0 56.0
C (70-79) 12.0 15.0 20.8
Type of High School Attended
Public 91.3 75.0 n/a
Indep, Not Relig 1.7 5.0 n/a
Catholic 2.9 20.0 n/a
Indep, Oth Relig 4.0 0.0 n/a
SAT Score Critical Reading 200-399 22.3 22.2 21.8 400-599 70.0 77.8 73.2 600-800 7.7 0.0 5.1 Mathematical 200-399 24.2 11.1 15.8 400-599 60.4 77.8 75.7 600-800 15.4 11.1 8.5 Writing 200-399 20.9 22.2 29.0 400-599 69.2 66.7 68.5 600-800 9.9 11.1 2.6 Residence
Same State as Host Site 85.5 75.0 87.3
Other 14.5 25.0 12.7
Distance of College from Home
Within 50 Miles 26.3 28.6 48.2
51 to 100 Miles 22.2 52.4 28.5
101 to 300 Miles 46.8 14.3 22.0
301 to 500 Miles 1.2 0.0 0.6
More than 500 Miles 3.5 4.8 0.6
Parents’ Income Below $30,000 19.2 16.7 29.2 $30,000-$39,999 8.6 22.2 8.1 $40,000-$59,999 25.2 27.8 13.1 $60,000-$79,999 17.9 22.2 13.6 $80,000-$99,999 8.6 0.0 11.5 $100,000-$149,999 9.9 11.1 16.4 $150,000-$199,999 6.6 0.0 5.1 $200,000 & Over 4.0 0.0 3.1 Degree-Type Baccalaureate 34.0 23.1 47.2 Associate 63.7 73.1 48.8 Certificate 1.6 0.0 1.4 Non-Degree Seeking 0.8 3.8 2.6
Instructional Program Area
Agriculture, Ag Operations & Related Sciences 0.8 0.0 0.7
Natural Resources and Conservation 1.2 1.9 0.8
Architecture and Related Services 1.6 1.9 2.3
Communication, Journalism & Related Prgrms 0.0 0.0 0.1 Computer and Info Sciences & Support Srvcs 7.8 0.0 6.8
Personal and Culinary Services 5.9 3.8 3.6
Engineering Tech & Eng-Related Fields 19.9 13.5 20.8 Family & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences 1.2 3.8 0.9
Legal Professions and Studies 0.0 0.0 1.4
Liberal Arts & Sci, Gen Studies & Humanities 1.2 3.8 1.4
Multi-Interdisciplinary Studies 0.4 0.0 0.3
Parks, Recreation, Leisure, and Fitness Studies 0.8 0.0 1.0
Construction Trades 5.5 3.8 5.6
Mechanical & Repair Technologies/Techs 15.6 7.7 11.0
Precision Production 3.9 3.8 2.7
Visual and Performing Arts 2.0 3.8 2.2
Health Professions and Related Programs 26.6 30.8 29.4
Business, Mgmt, Mrkt & Related Support Srvcs 3.5 5.8 7.0
Note. Host Site Norms is based on official student census data for the Fall 2013 semester. Instructional Program categories based on the National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes at the two-digit level.
Non-enrolling student demographics. In Table 2, non-enrolling student demographic data contains numerous, important distinctions from enrolling student data. Regarding personal characteristics, though both enrolling and non-enrolling students are a male-majority (61.1% and 57.1%, respectively), the gender-gap disparity is less pronounced for non-enrolling students. Additionally, parents’ income for non-enrolling students is generally lower (66.7% earn less than $60,000) than parents’ income reported by enrolling students (53.0% earn less than $60,000). However, parents’ income for non-enrolling students is less likely to be extremely high or extremely low.
The race/ethnicity of non-enrolling survey participants is more minority-heavy (21.0%) than the enrolling student mix (12.0%). A closer examination finds that 75% of these students report a family income below $40,000, and 75% live within 100 miles of the technical college. Also, 50% are female and 50% attended a private high school.
Other areas of distinction are associated with high school performance and institution- type. Non-enrolling students’ high school grades (40% A’s) are somewhat higher than those of enrolling students (35.4% A’s). Further, a sizable proportion of non-enrolling students attended a private high school (25.0%), compared to the students surveyed who intended to enroll
(10.6%).
State of residency and proximity to campus, interrelated location component, also yield interesting comparisons. Non-enrolling students are more likely to be from out-of-state (25.0%) than their enrolling counterparts (14.5%). However, non-enrolling students’ distance from home
is more mid-range (52.4% live 51 to 100 miles from campus) than the farther-reaching span (101 to 300 miles) of a plurality of enrolling students (46.8% live 101 to 300 miles from campus); both greater than institutional norms.
Non-enrolling students also display unique characteristics with regard to degree-type sought and expected academic program pursuit. Although both enrolling and non-enrolling students intended to pursue an associate degree at a higher percentage (63.7% and 73.1%,
respectively) than the institutional norm (44.8%), non-enrolling students even outpaced enrolling students. The instructional program areas that non-enrolling students elected to pursue are generally in line with those of enrolling students. However, one noteworthy exception is the fact that more non-enrolling students are undecided (15.4%) about their instructional program than enrolling students (2.3%).
Enrolling student demographics. Most of the data on enrolling students in Table 2 is generally consistent with institutional norms. However, a handful of exceptions are noteworthy. For one, the proportion of students reporting parent’s income below $60,000 (53.0%) is
somewhat larger than the institutional norm (50.4%). Also, the proportion of student reporting distance from home as 100+ miles away from campus (51.5%) is significantly larger than the norm (23.2%).
Another area of distinction involves SAT scores. The Math SAT scores at the high (600- 800) and low (200-399) extremes were markedly higher for enrolling students (15.4% and 24.2%, respectively) than the institutional norms (8.5% and 15.8%, respectively). The upper- level Writing SAT scores (600-800) of both enrolling (9.9%) and non-enrolling (11.1%) students were noticeably higher than the norm (2.6%).
Finally, it is useful to consider the academic pursuits of enrolling students. The volume of enrolling students who sought to earn an associate degree (63.7%) exceeded the overall, student-body norm (48.8%). However, the mix of instructional programs that they intended to pursue generally falls in line with institutional norms.
Findings. After considering the demographical differences between enrolling and non-
enrolling students who completed the Admitted Student Questionnaire®, it is now appropriate to analyze the college choice factors for these populations in order to establish meaningful findings from research. In this section, the students’ level of importance ratings of the college choice factors are analyzed first, followed by their ratings of the technical college compared to other post-secondary institutions they are considering attending. In both cases, a statistical Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is performed, and the tables that follow display mean, standard deviation, level of significance for each of the college choice factors.
Table 3 presents the findings of the level of importance that admitted students assigned to each of the college choice factors presented in the survey.
Table 3
Analysis of Variance of Mean Importance Ratings of College Choice Factors by Enrolling and Non-Enrolling Students (with Standard Deviations in Parentheses)
Importance Rating College Characteristics Enrolling (N=256) Non-Enrolling (N=52) p Quality of faculty 1.08 (0.28) 1.15 (0.36) .10
Quality of majors of interest to you 1.05 (0.23) 1.12 (0.32) .07 Overall academic reputation 1.30 (0.47) 1.23 (0.43) .36 Quality of academic facilities 1.21 (0.42) 1.23 (0.43) .71
Variety of courses 1.43 (0.58) 1.41 (0.57) .87
Access to faculty 1.20 (0.43) 1.28 (0.57) .29
Concentration on undergraduate
education 1.48 (0.64) 1.48 (0.65) .98
Prominent intercollegiate athletics 2.15 (0.78) 2.14 (0.87) .92
Cost to your family 1.13 (0.37) 1.23 (0.55) .11
Athletic programs in which you
would like to participate 2.17 (0.80) 2.13 (0.79) .77 Availability of extracurricular
activities 1.88 (0.74) 1.92 (0.74) .71
Access to off-campus cultural and
recreational opportunities 1.79 (0.72) 1.69 (0.76) .37 Availability of religious activities 2.33 (0.77) 2.24 (0.84) .41 Quality of social life 1.49 (0.62) 1.40 (0.63) .34 Attractiveness of campus 1.43 (0.58) 1.42 (0.57) .97
Surroundings 1.50 (0.57) 1.46 (0.61) .70
Part of the country in which the
college is located 1.52 (0.66) 1.56 (0.70) .70
Quality of on-campus housing 1.40 (0.71) 1.50 (0.75) .37
Ease of getting home 1.42 (0.62) 1.44 (0.64) .80
Chance to be with students from
different backgrounds 1.90 (0.75) 1.81 (0.82) .43
Note. Importance Rating Scale: (1=Very Important; 2=Somewhat Important; 3=Not Important)
Data analysis reveals that no statistically significant differences (p < .05) exist between enrolling and non-enrolling students concerning the level of importance that they assign to the college choice factors presented. Despite this finding, there are a variety of meaningful elements
to glean from the data in the preceding table. For example, it is worth noting that those items showing the most significance differences (p < .15) include the following:
Quality of majors of interest to you (p = .07) Quality of faculty (p = .10)
Cost to your family (p = .11)
Another interesting aspect to consider is the college choice factors rated of higher
importance by enrolling students than non-enrolling students. Such findings may help to identify areas that are encouraging enrolling students to matriculate at the technical college. These factors include:
Access to faculty [M = 1.20 (enrolling); M = 1.28 (non-enrolling)]
Quality of on-campus housing [M = 1.40 (enrolling); M = 1.50 (non-enrolling)] Similarly, non-enrolling students assign greater importance to certain college choice factors than enrolling students. Such findings may help to identify areas that are deterring non- enrolling students from matriculating at the technical college. These factors include:
Chance to be with students from different backgrounds [M = 1.90 (enrolling); M = 1.81 (non-enrolling)]
Quality of social life [M = 1.49 (enrolling); M = 1.40 (non-enrolling)] Availability of religious activities [M = 2.33 (enrolling); M = 2.24 (non-
enrolling)]
Access to off-campus cultural and recreational opportunities [M = 1.79 (enrolling); M = 1.69 (non-enrolling)]
Another element worthy of consideration includes items rated the most important by both enrolling and non-enrolling students (M < 1.40). Such findings may reveal areas of critical focus for the technical college. Items very important to both groups include:
Quality of majors of interest to you Quality of faculty
Cost to your family
Quality of academic facilities Access to faculty
Overall academic reputation
Similarly, it is worth noting the items of least importance to both groups (M > 1.80). Such findings may reveal areas where the technical college should devote little or no resources. These items include the following factors:
Availability of religious activities
Athletic program in which you would like to participate Prominent intercollegiate athletics
Chance to be with students from different backgrounds Availability of extracurricular activities
Transitioning now from importance ratings to institutional rating, Table 4 presents the findings of the comparative institutional ratings that admitted students assigned to each of the college choice factors presented in the survey.
Table 4
Analysis of Variance of Mean Institutional Ratings of College Choice Factors by Enrolling and Non-Enrolling Students (with Standard Deviations in Parentheses)
Institutional Rating College Characteristics Enrolling (n=256) Non-Enrolling (n=52) p Quality of faculty 1.71 (0.69) 2.06 (0.95) .01*
Quality of majors of interest to you 1.61 (0.77) 2.10 (1.05) .00*
Overall academic reputation 1.87 (0.82) 2.05 (0.93) .22
Quality of academic facilities 1.75 (0.78) 2.03 (0.84) .05
Variety of courses 1.97 (0.82) 2.17 (0.92) .19
Access to faculty 1.79 (0.79) 2.00 (0.94) .17
Concentration on undergraduate education 1.98 (0.86) 2.21 (0.88) .16 Prominent intercollegiate athletics 2.51 (0.98) 2.60 (1.07) .65
Cost to your family 2.41 (1.04) 2.70 (1.20) .12
Athletic programs in which you would like to
participate 2.48 (1.01) 2.53 (0.98) .77
Availability of extracurricular activities 2.18 (0.90) 2.42 (0.99) .18 Access to off-campus cultural and recreational
opportunities 2.22 (0.86) 2.34 (0.87) .46
Availability of religious activities 2.44 (0.88) 2.65 (0.85) .26
Quality of social life 2.08 (0.87) 2.37 (1.03) .08
Attractiveness of campus 1.74 (0.83) 2.00 (1.04) .09
Surroundings 2.29 (1.02) 2.49 (1.09) .29
Part of the country in which the college is located 1.99 (0.90) 2.26 (1.04) .11
Quality of on-campus housing 1.68 (0.79) 2.09 (1.16) .01*
Ease of getting home 1.99 (1.02) 2.17 (1.16) .34
Chance to be with students from different
backgrounds 2.12 (0.89) 2.55 (0.94) .01*
Note. Institutional Rating Scale: (1=Best; 2=Better than Most; 3=About the Same; 4=Poorer than Most; 5=Worst; 0=Can’t Compare). Calculations exclude zero value associated with the “Can’t Compare” scale option.
*p < .05.
Significant differences (p < .05) between enrolling and non-enrolling students regarding their opinion of institutional rating are presented in Table 4. Such differences signal meaningful divergence of opinion about the perception of the technical college relative to peer institutions that both enrolling and non-enrolling students are considering in their college choice processes.
In each case, enrolling students rated the technical college as better than peer institutions than non-enrolling students did. These significantly different institutional ratings of college choice factors include the following:
Quality of majors of interest to you (p = .00) Quality of faculty (p = .01)
Quality of on-campus housing (p = .01)
Chance to be with students from different backgrounds (p = .01)
It is important to note that enrolling students rate the technical college higher than non- enrolling students on all institutional comparison college choice factors. Intuitively, it stands to reason that students inclined to attend the technical college would prefer its attributes more so than students inclined to attend another institution. Nevertheless, other meaningful comparisons are noteworthy. For one, college choice factors with sizable, though not significant, institutional ratings differences (p < .15) include:
Quality of academic facilities (p = .05) Quality of social life (p = .08)
Attractiveness of campus (p = .09)
Part of the country in which the college is located (p = .11) Cost to your family (p = .12)
Another meaningful element to consider includes factors where enrolling students give their highest rating to the technical college. These findings may help the institution know where to build upon existing strengths. Enrolling students rated the technical college best at the
following:
Quality of on-campus housing (M = 1.68) Quality of faculty (M = 1.71)
Conversely, enrolling students gave the technical college their lowest ratings in several areas. Although the ratings portray the technical college’s offerings as the same or slightly better than other institutions, these factors suggest areas for improvement. Enrolling student rate the institution worst at the following:
Prominent intercollegiate athletics (M = 2.51)
Athletic program in which you would like to participate (M = 2.48) Availability of religious activities (M = 2.44)
Cost to your family (M = 2.41)
After considering the factor rated highest and lowest by enrolling students, it is appropriate to present similar findings for non-enrolling students. Hence, the college choice factors where non-enrolling students rated the technical college highest follow. Such
information may assist the host site by identifying strengths to accentuate in order to appeal to students unlikely to enroll. Non-enrolling students rate the institution best at the following:
Access to faculty (M = 2.00)
Attractiveness of campus (M = 2.00) Quality of academic facilities (M = 2.03) Overall academic reputation (M = 2.05) Quality of faculty (M = 2.06)
Quality of majors of interest to you (M = 2.10)
On the other hand, non-enrolling students gave their lowest rating to technical college on several factors. Such findings may guide the host site to address shortcomings in areas that
could appeal to students who were previously unlikely to enroll. Non-enrolling students rate the institution worst at the following:
Cost to your family (M = 2.70)
Availability of religious activities (M = 2.65) Prominent intercollegiate athletics (M = 2.60)
Chance to be with students from different backgrounds (M = 2.55) Athletic programs in which you would like to participate (M = 2.53)
Reliability and validity. In light of the findings presented above, it is fair to wonder if
they are truly meaningful. Knowing that the findings are both consistent and accurate is paramount. Hence, establishing reliability and validity are critical aspects for ensuring that the information is consequential and actionable. It is preferable that such measures come from the research firm that owns the instrument. Regrettably, reliability and validity statistics are not available from the proprietor of the Admitted Student Questionnaire® (ASQ®), the College Board. As such, they are addressed independently by the researcher. Herein, the validity of this quantitative research method is considered first, followed by its reliability.
Is the ASQ® valid? Content validity stems from survey research experts at the College Board, a trusted leader in education research, who created the survey over 25 years ago (Ellen Karanek, personal communication, July 3, 2013). Further, leaders in higher education
administration endorse the ASQ® and rely on it repeatedly (College Board, 2012). Some colleges and universities use it year after year as a tool for informing enrollment management practices, suggesting construct validity is also intact. From 2007-2012 alone, the instrument was utilized by at least 70 different institutions across numerous sectors of higher education including
Public, Private, 2-Year, 4-Year, Baccalaureate, Master’s, Doctoral, Engineering, Business, Art/Music/Design, etc. (College Board, 2012).
Is the ASQ® reliable? The longevity and popularity of the instrument, 25+ years and 100+ colleges and universities, assumes a considerable level of reliability. Nevertheless, this study adapts and implements the methodology established by Espinoza (2001) to determine internal reliability. Her methodology used statistical analysis to calculate Cronbach’s Alpha for the 20 college characteristics items listed on the ASQ®, grouped as follows:
Academics
o Q1: Quality of faculty
o Q2: Quality of majors of interest to you o Q3: Overall academic impression
o Q4: Quality of academic facilities (library, laboratories, computers, etc.) Athletics
o Q8: Prominent intercollegiate athletics
o Q10: Athletic programs in which you would like to participate Cost
o Q9: Cost to your family – how much you and your family would have to pay after grants and scholarships (if any) are subtracted from total college costs
o Supplemental Q1: Actual costs incurred each semester o Supplemental Q3: Value for the price
Location of Campus
o Q15: Attractiveness of campus
o Q16: Surroundings (neighborhood, town or city) o Q17: Part of the country in which the college is located o Q19: Ease of getting home
Service Expectations
o Q5: Variety of courses o Q6: Access to faculty
o Q7: Concentration on undergraduate education Student Life
o Q11: Availability of extracurricular activities (clubs, debates, drama, music, etc.)
o Q13: Availability of religious activities o Q14: Quality of social life
o Q18: Quality of on-campus housing
o Q20: Chance to be with students from different backgrounds
Espinoza (2001) excluded the Cost category from the reliability analysis because only one of the twenty college characteristics questions in the ASQ® addressed the issue of cost; leaving no similar items for comparative purposes. Fortunately for the present study, the technical college asked admitted students supplemental questions about cost-related college choice factors; one regarding actual cost incurred each semester and another about value for the price as shown above. As such, the reliability of Cost items in this study considers the ASQ’s® single college characteristic question on cost in conjunction with supplemental, cost-related questions added by the institution to the standard questionnaire (see Appendix B).
The first aspect of internal reliability to consider is how consistently all students responded to the importance ratings for the college choice factors. Table 5 displays these reliability findings.
Table 5
Coefficient Alpha Values of Importance Ratings Based on College Choice Factors for All Students
Factor Group Factor Items
Cronbach’s Alpha Academics Quality of faculty; Quality of majors of interest to you;
Overall academic reputation; Quality of academic facilities
.49
Service Expectations Variety of courses; Access to faculty; Concentration on undergraduate education
.57 Athletics Prominent intercollegiate athletics; Athletic programs
in which you would like to participate
.88 Cost Cost of attendance; Actual costs incurred each
semester; Value for the price
.66 Student Life Availability of extracurricular activities; Availability of